High Guard 3

[robject]

Hmmm. That's not bad.


The closest I came to something I sort of liked was by taking the Book 2 table entries for 100 to 900 tons only, and normalizing the numbers some. But there's still a discontinuity at the Drive-A level that I don't know how to fix elegantly.

Maybe I'm going at this the wrong way. Those tables are only nice for ships in the 100-900 ton range anyway; small vehicles and large dreadnoughts might not make the same kind of generalizations that make it easy to build, say, a Far Trader.

 

[mike wightman]

How about increasing the drive reduction factor based on hull size, giving this damage track:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> hull damage damage track
size /hit
100-200 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
300-400 0.5 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
500-700 0.33 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 etc.
800-1000 0.25 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 etc.
2000+ 0.2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 etc.</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[mike wightman]

How about increasing the drive reduction factor based on hull size, giving this damage track:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> hull damage damage track
size /hit
100-200 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
300-400 0.5 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
500-700 0.33 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 etc.
800-1000 0.25 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 etc.
2000+ 0.2 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 etc.</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[robject]

I like the way that looks, Sigg, and I like the up-scaling as the hull volume increases. I also like a table, which means some math has been done for the user already. And I love the term "damage track". Did you make it up?

I also like it because it reminds me that there's a standard unit of damage -- a laser hit, I suppose.

Is that table a problem for very large hulls? What about the 250,000 ton dreadnought? Does the extended damage track look like:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">10,000- 0.15 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 ...
100,000- 0.1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 ...</pre>[/QUOTE]Hey, that's pretty cool. I need to play around with it some.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">100-200 1/1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
300-400 1/2 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
500-600 1/3 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6
700-900 1/4 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
1000-4000 1/5 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 ...
5000-9000 1/6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 ...
10k-40k 1/7 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 ...
50k-90k 1/8 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
100k-900k 1/9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
1m-9m 1/10 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 ...</pre>[/QUOTE]This might be handled with probabilities too. For example,

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hull vol. p Drive degradation (2d6)
100-200 0.97 11-
300-400 0.92 10-
500-600 0.84 9-
700-900 0.73 8-
1000-9000 0.6 7-
10k-90k 0.4 6-
100k-900k 0.27 5-
1m-9m 0.16 4-</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[robject]

I like the way that looks, Sigg, and I like the up-scaling as the hull volume increases. I also like a table, which means some math has been done for the user already. And I love the term "damage track". Did you make it up?

I also like it because it reminds me that there's a standard unit of damage -- a laser hit, I suppose.

Is that table a problem for very large hulls? What about the 250,000 ton dreadnought? Does the extended damage track look like:

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">10,000- 0.15 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 ...
100,000- 0.1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 ...</pre>[/QUOTE]Hey, that's pretty cool. I need to play around with it some.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">100-200 1/1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
300-400 1/2 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
500-600 1/3 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6
700-900 1/4 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
1000-4000 1/5 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 ...
5000-9000 1/6 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 ...
10k-40k 1/7 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 ...
50k-90k 1/8 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
100k-900k 1/9 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
1m-9m 1/10 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 ...</pre>[/QUOTE]This might be handled with probabilities too. For example,

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Hull vol. p Drive degradation (2d6)
100-200 0.97 11-
300-400 0.92 10-
500-600 0.84 9-
700-900 0.73 8-
1000-9000 0.6 7-
10k-90k 0.4 6-
100k-900k 0.27 5-
1m-9m 0.16 4-</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[aramis]

Robject: call that discontinuity a lack of scale efficiency, or the drive subcomputer node. Or maybe the duty engineer's station.

 

[aramis]

Robject: call that discontinuity a lack of scale efficiency, or the drive subcomputer node. Or maybe the duty engineer's station.

 

[robject]

Thanks Aramis and Sigg. Now I'm torn between an abbreviated Book 2-like table and a damage track.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
Hull 1 2 3 4 5 6

100 A B C D E F
200 B D F H K L
300 C F J L M N
400 D H L M P Q
500 E K M P R S
600 F L N Q S U
700 G M Q R U W
800 H M Q T V X
900 J N R U W Y

A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y
100 1 2 3 4 5 6
200 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6
300 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
400 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 6
500 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6
600 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6
700 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6
800 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6
900 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[robject]

Thanks Aramis and Sigg. Now I'm torn between an abbreviated Book 2-like table and a damage track.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
Hull 1 2 3 4 5 6

100 A B C D E F
200 B D F H K L
300 C F J L M N
400 D H L M P Q
500 E K M P R S
600 F L N Q S U
700 G M Q R U W
800 H M Q T V X
900 J N R U W Y

A B C D E F G H J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y
100 1 2 3 4 5 6
200 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6
300 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 6
400 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 6
500 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 6
600 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6
700 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6
800 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6
900 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 6</pre>[/QUOTE]

 

[hcobb]

Here's my house rules for High Guard

Energy Allocation: Instead of using the Emergency Agility and Agility
reduction from power plant hits simply allow each ship to allocate energy
during the pre-combat step. Note that each ship's jump capacitors can
usually start empty or full at the captains option at the start of a battle
unless special scenario rules require otherwise and that each ship can no
more than double its power plant output (if not using a black globe) by
drawing power from capacitors.

Chipping away at armor: Whenever a 2 is rolled for damage before modifiers
on the surface explosions table reduce the target's armor tonnage by one
tenth of the Energy Points this weapon would inflict on a black globe.
Planetoid hulls lose waste spaces of rock after losing all of their
external armor and when all of the waste space is gone the ship is
destroyed.

Example: A 10,000 ton TL13 ship has armor factor 13 and therefore 2,800
tons of armor. If struck by a factor 9 nuclear missile and a 2 was rolled
on the surface explosion table the modified result would be a 15 for a
Weapon-1 result and in addition the ship would lose 90 tons of armor which
takes it down to 2,710 tons of armor. Once it is reduced to 2,600 tons of
armor it will be at armor factor 12.

Fuel tanks shattered as a critical hit: Exchange the Crew-1 result on the
critical hit table with the Fuel tanks shattered hit on Interior Explsion.

Meson Screens as Armor: Do not use the meson screen or configuration
penetration tables for Meson attacks. Instead apply the meson screen
factor of the target as an armor factor against meson attacks, except that
automatic critical hits from oversized meson attacks are reduced by the
full meson screen factor rather than half that factor as would be the case
with armor against other weapon types.

Example: A size class K ship with meson screen factor-9 is struck by a
factor-S meson gun. The ship suffers no automatic critical hits and takes
8 damage rolls on each of the Radiation and Interior Explsion damage tables
at a +9 modifier and suffers 1 radiation computer-1 result which is ignored
due to a hardened computer model, 3 weapon-1 results, 2 weapon-2 results, 3
Screens-1 results, 1 Screens-2 result, 2 Jump-1 results, 1 Power Plant-1
and 1 interior explosion Computer-1 result which is not ignored.

Energy Weapons on defense: Energy weapons are also at a -2 to be penetrated
by missiles.

Gunnery skill: Divide the character's Gunnery skill by two, round down and
subtract one to find a positive modifier when their battery rolls to hit or
penetrate and a negative modifier when their battery is resisting
penetration or rolling damage for a hit they've scored.

Engineering skill: Divide the character's Engineering skill by two, round
down and subtract one to find a positive modifier the character can apply
for one repair roll per turn.

Suicide attack: At the start of the Pre-Combat Decision Step the player with
the initiative if at short range may declare that some of his ships are
engaging in suicide attacks and designate one target for each.

At the start of the Combat Step before the usual target selection any ships
that are the subject of suicide attacks may fire at their attackers. This
fire is conducted as if the suicide attacker had agility zero and all
damage from this defensive fire is resolved on the attacking ships before
they themselves fire.

Then the suicide attacking ships may fire their laser and energy weapon
batteries at their selected targets, adding the current agility of the
suicide attacker after damage to its computer factor to hit and penetrate
defenses and subtracting this agility from the damage roll. After the
damage from all suicide attacks is resolved then use the normal procedure
to resolve the fire of the remaining batteries on all sides.

Time on target: Multiple batteries can launch their missiles to impact on a
single target at the same time. You can declare any number of missile
batteries from any of your ships at the same range band to the target as
engaging in a Time on Target attack. Make one attack as a single battery
using the smallest missile factor of any of the engaging batteries and the
smallest computer factor of any of the attacking ships then add a plus one
to this effective computer factor to hit and penetrate with this attack for
each doubling of the attacking batteries, up to double the base computer
factor.

Example: The Pantheress is on a routine patrol when the captain orders the
entire fighter wing out to make a simulated attack against the ship for
training.

The 300 heavy fighters have effective computer factors of 6 after adjusting
for their lack of bridge facilities and so they attack at long range with
simulated nuclear missiles in 4 time on target groups of 64 for a +6 and
the remaining 44 fighters combine for a +5 group.

At long range a factor 2 missile battery needs to roll a 6 -computer factor
12 +computer factor 9 -2 for target size or a 1 or more to hit so all five
batteries hit.

The Pantheress assigns 1 repulsor bay to each group's hit and they need to
roll a 22 or greater with a +3 computer modifier to penetrate and they don't.

The next combat round the fighters have the initiative and choose short
range and simulated suicide attacks with their lasers.

215 of the fighters are defended against with factor-9 convential
missiles. Since they are at effective agility 0 the roll to hit is 2 +1
for short range -3 for computer difference +2 for target size or a 2 or
greater and all 215 hit. The defensive sand factor of 3 fails to stop
any of these missile hits and so every one of these 215 fighters takes 5
critical hits (battery - size is 9 minus 4 for armor factor 8) and is
knocked out.

Another 25 fighters face factor 6 fusion batteries. These have an adjusted
to hit roll of 4 and 23 of these hit and easily penetrates sand factor 3 to
score 2 critical hits. One of the particle accelerator batteries misses,
but the other four, the lasers and a simulated attack from the spinal mount
take out another 10 fighters.

The remaining 53 fighters then make their suicide attacks. Their factor 2
lasers need to roll 7 +3 for the computer difference -6 for suicide agility
-2 for target size +6 for target agility or a 8 or greater to hit and 22 of
them do.

Five of these hits face factor-9 sand batteries and need a 13 +3 for
computer -6 for suicide agility or 10 or greater to penetrate and one of
them does.

A total of 18 simulated damage rolls are made on the surface explosions
table with a +6 for non-spinal weapon +15 for target armor and -6 for
suicide agility scoring 6 weapon-1 results and 1 Fuel-1 result.

-HJC

 

[hcobb]

Here's my house rules for High Guard

Energy Allocation: Instead of using the Emergency Agility and Agility
reduction from power plant hits simply allow each ship to allocate energy
during the pre-combat step. Note that each ship's jump capacitors can
usually start empty or full at the captains option at the start of a battle
unless special scenario rules require otherwise and that each ship can no
more than double its power plant output (if not using a black globe) by
drawing power from capacitors.

Chipping away at armor: Whenever a 2 is rolled for damage before modifiers
on the surface explosions table reduce the target's armor tonnage by one
tenth of the Energy Points this weapon would inflict on a black globe.
Planetoid hulls lose waste spaces of rock after losing all of their
external armor and when all of the waste space is gone the ship is
destroyed.

Example: A 10,000 ton TL13 ship has armor factor 13 and therefore 2,800
tons of armor. If struck by a factor 9 nuclear missile and a 2 was rolled
on the surface explosion table the modified result would be a 15 for a
Weapon-1 result and in addition the ship would lose 90 tons of armor which
takes it down to 2,710 tons of armor. Once it is reduced to 2,600 tons of
armor it will be at armor factor 12.

Fuel tanks shattered as a critical hit: Exchange the Crew-1 result on the
critical hit table with the Fuel tanks shattered hit on Interior Explsion.

Meson Screens as Armor: Do not use the meson screen or configuration
penetration tables for Meson attacks. Instead apply the meson screen
factor of the target as an armor factor against meson attacks, except that
automatic critical hits from oversized meson attacks are reduced by the
full meson screen factor rather than half that factor as would be the case
with armor against other weapon types.

Example: A size class K ship with meson screen factor-9 is struck by a
factor-S meson gun. The ship suffers no automatic critical hits and takes
8 damage rolls on each of the Radiation and Interior Explsion damage tables
at a +9 modifier and suffers 1 radiation computer-1 result which is ignored
due to a hardened computer model, 3 weapon-1 results, 2 weapon-2 results, 3
Screens-1 results, 1 Screens-2 result, 2 Jump-1 results, 1 Power Plant-1
and 1 interior explosion Computer-1 result which is not ignored.

Energy Weapons on defense: Energy weapons are also at a -2 to be penetrated
by missiles.

Gunnery skill: Divide the character's Gunnery skill by two, round down and
subtract one to find a positive modifier when their battery rolls to hit or
penetrate and a negative modifier when their battery is resisting
penetration or rolling damage for a hit they've scored.

Engineering skill: Divide the character's Engineering skill by two, round
down and subtract one to find a positive modifier the character can apply
for one repair roll per turn.

Suicide attack: At the start of the Pre-Combat Decision Step the player with
the initiative if at short range may declare that some of his ships are
engaging in suicide attacks and designate one target for each.

At the start of the Combat Step before the usual target selection any ships
that are the subject of suicide attacks may fire at their attackers. This
fire is conducted as if the suicide attacker had agility zero and all
damage from this defensive fire is resolved on the attacking ships before
they themselves fire.

Then the suicide attacking ships may fire their laser and energy weapon
batteries at their selected targets, adding the current agility of the
suicide attacker after damage to its computer factor to hit and penetrate
defenses and subtracting this agility from the damage roll. After the
damage from all suicide attacks is resolved then use the normal procedure
to resolve the fire of the remaining batteries on all sides.

Time on target: Multiple batteries can launch their missiles to impact on a
single target at the same time. You can declare any number of missile
batteries from any of your ships at the same range band to the target as
engaging in a Time on Target attack. Make one attack as a single battery
using the smallest missile factor of any of the engaging batteries and the
smallest computer factor of any of the attacking ships then add a plus one
to this effective computer factor to hit and penetrate with this attack for
each doubling of the attacking batteries, up to double the base computer
factor.

Example: The Pantheress is on a routine patrol when the captain orders the
entire fighter wing out to make a simulated attack against the ship for
training.

The 300 heavy fighters have effective computer factors of 6 after adjusting
for their lack of bridge facilities and so they attack at long range with
simulated nuclear missiles in 4 time on target groups of 64 for a +6 and
the remaining 44 fighters combine for a +5 group.

At long range a factor 2 missile battery needs to roll a 6 -computer factor
12 +computer factor 9 -2 for target size or a 1 or more to hit so all five
batteries hit.

The Pantheress assigns 1 repulsor bay to each group's hit and they need to
roll a 22 or greater with a +3 computer modifier to penetrate and they don't.

The next combat round the fighters have the initiative and choose short
range and simulated suicide attacks with their lasers.

215 of the fighters are defended against with factor-9 convential
missiles. Since they are at effective agility 0 the roll to hit is 2 +1
for short range -3 for computer difference +2 for target size or a 2 or
greater and all 215 hit. The defensive sand factor of 3 fails to stop
any of these missile hits and so every one of these 215 fighters takes 5
critical hits (battery - size is 9 minus 4 for armor factor 8) and is
knocked out.

Another 25 fighters face factor 6 fusion batteries. These have an adjusted
to hit roll of 4 and 23 of these hit and easily penetrates sand factor 3 to
score 2 critical hits. One of the particle accelerator batteries misses,
but the other four, the lasers and a simulated attack from the spinal mount
take out another 10 fighters.

The remaining 53 fighters then make their suicide attacks. Their factor 2
lasers need to roll 7 +3 for the computer difference -6 for suicide agility
-2 for target size +6 for target agility or a 8 or greater to hit and 22 of
them do.

Five of these hits face factor-9 sand batteries and need a 13 +3 for
computer -6 for suicide agility or 10 or greater to penetrate and one of
them does.

A total of 18 simulated damage rolls are made on the surface explosions
table with a +6 for non-spinal weapon +15 for target armor and -6 for
suicide agility scoring 6 weapon-1 results and 1 Fuel-1 result.

-HJC

 

[aramis]

Robject: Depends upon publication method. If E-pub, go with the premade damage track, including J0 capability and/or no jump capability. That way, you can just copy and paste....

In either case, the abbreviated is nice to have AS WELL.

 

[aramis]

Robject: Depends upon publication method. If E-pub, go with the premade damage track, including J0 capability and/or no jump capability. That way, you can just copy and paste....

In either case, the abbreviated is nice to have AS WELL.

 

[robject]

Thanks Aramis. Obviously I am neither a professional game designer nor a publisher, so I'm free to use as many pixels as I can.

I do like the J0 "insystem-only" capability too.

 

[robject]

Thanks Aramis. Obviously I am neither a professional game designer nor a publisher, so I'm free to use as many pixels as I can.

I do like the J0 "insystem-only" capability too.

 

[The Oz]

I'm back, and I was thinking about that proposed abstract naval combat system over my holiday.

I like the idea of having a positive DM on the Combat Results Table if the firing element has spinal meson guns. In any campaign use of the system it should be fairly obvious whether the firing element has such weapons, but for a randomly created force I would suggest the following:

A force is considered to have spinal meson guns (and therefore get the DM on the Combat Results Table) if: the force is TL12+ and the firing element is at least 100,000 tons in size.

I'd think the +DM for having spinal meson guns would be at least +2, and I'd suggest +3, and the table should probably be extended to have a higher upper end, possibly as much as 1000% damage inflicted. I also think that the results on the Combat Result Table should be re-written in a form that would give a value that would then be multiplied with the firing element's tonnage to give the damage done. This way, a 1% result would be a multiplier of 0.01, while a 200% result would be a mulitplier of 2.

So here's a suggested new Combat Results Table:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Combat Results Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Damage (multiplier for firing element's total tonnage)
-2 None
-1 0.01
0 0.05
1 0.10
2 0.20
3 0.40
4 0.50
5 0.60
6 0.80
7 1.00
8 2.00
9 4.00
10 6.00
11 8.00
12+ 10.0

DMs: + difference in Tech Levels (can be negative)
+ difference in Fleet Efficiencies (can be negative)
+1 if attacking
+3 if have surprise
+3 if firing element has spinal meson guns (TL12+ and 100,000+ tons)</pre>[/QUOTE]If this is considered good, then what's needed is a way to divide up the damage among the ships making up the engaged element, whenever that is necessary (like it would be for a campaign game).

Right now the only thoughts I have along this line are that damage from elements using meson guns should be divided up differently from non-meson gun using elements. I think that damage from meson guns should tend to kill ships and kill the bigger ships first, while non-meson gun damage should tend to damage but not kill ships and should damage and/or kill the smaller ships first.

Maybe some kind of random allocation should be used, with modifers for what did the damage? Whatever is to be used should be able to allow for varying force compositions.

 

[The Oz]

I'm back, and I was thinking about that proposed abstract naval combat system over my holiday.

I like the idea of having a positive DM on the Combat Results Table if the firing element has spinal meson guns. In any campaign use of the system it should be fairly obvious whether the firing element has such weapons, but for a randomly created force I would suggest the following:

A force is considered to have spinal meson guns (and therefore get the DM on the Combat Results Table) if: the force is TL12+ and the firing element is at least 100,000 tons in size.

I'd think the +DM for having spinal meson guns would be at least +2, and I'd suggest +3, and the table should probably be extended to have a higher upper end, possibly as much as 1000% damage inflicted. I also think that the results on the Combat Result Table should be re-written in a form that would give a value that would then be multiplied with the firing element's tonnage to give the damage done. This way, a 1% result would be a multiplier of 0.01, while a 200% result would be a mulitplier of 2.

So here's a suggested new Combat Results Table:
</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Combat Results Table (1d6+DMs)
Roll Damage (multiplier for firing element's total tonnage)
-2 None
-1 0.01
0 0.05
1 0.10
2 0.20
3 0.40
4 0.50
5 0.60
6 0.80
7 1.00
8 2.00
9 4.00
10 6.00
11 8.00
12+ 10.0

DMs: + difference in Tech Levels (can be negative)
+ difference in Fleet Efficiencies (can be negative)
+1 if attacking
+3 if have surprise
+3 if firing element has spinal meson guns (TL12+ and 100,000+ tons)</pre>[/QUOTE]If this is considered good, then what's needed is a way to divide up the damage among the ships making up the engaged element, whenever that is necessary (like it would be for a campaign game).

Right now the only thoughts I have along this line are that damage from elements using meson guns should be divided up differently from non-meson gun using elements. I think that damage from meson guns should tend to kill ships and kill the bigger ships first, while non-meson gun damage should tend to damage but not kill ships and should damage and/or kill the smaller ships first.

Maybe some kind of random allocation should be used, with modifers for what did the damage? Whatever is to be used should be able to allow for varying force compositions.

 

[robject]

Oz,

I like your abstract combat table. Taking your contributions to the Fleet Production thread into consideration, might using FFW as the abstract combat system accomplish the same thing? Or is that too abstract?

Back to the thread. I've lately been thinking about things Aramis has said in favor of MT vehicle combat. I wonder if it would be meaningful to convert the MT ship weapons tables into a High-Guard-friendly format, while also replacing the HG damage table with pen/dmg rules.

My take, which I'm no longer so sure about, is to rate weapons by the same size factor that I rate starship hulls: as a size-8 hull displaces 100 tons, so a factor-8 battery uses up one hardpoint; essentially a HG triple turret. A factor-7 weapon uses up 1/3 of a hardpoint, and all lower factors use 1/10 of a hp. Alternately, a spinal weapon may be implicitly where the battery factor is equal to the ship's size code. I'm examining the options here.

I figure a factor-1 weapon is a hand weapon, a factor-2 weapon is a rifle or rpg-sized thing, a factor-3 is an infantry support weapon. Factors 4 and 5 are vehicle-mounted weapons, and factor-6 is a small spacecraft weapon or heavy vehicle weapon. Factor-7 is where weapons truly have enough range and power to be useful in spaceship combat. Factor-8 is the largest weapon that can be mounted on small spacecraft (1 hardpoint). Factor-9 weapons are mounted on craft 1000 tons and up; Factor-10 are for craft 10ktons+; Factor-11 are for 100ktons+, and are usually spinal guns. Factor-12 batteries are for whatever craft might displace a million tons or more.

Here's an example. It's incomplete, and the numbers aren't correct, yet. The Damage rating is split between personal combat values and starship combat values... don't know what to do with that...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Damage note: 'd' is 'd6'; '1s' is one starship hit, equivalent to 500d6.

Factor TL Range Pen Damage EP MCr
1 15 Close 5 3d
2 12 Long 10 5d
3 10 Distant 20 8d
4 9 Region 40 12d
5 8 Cont 75 20d
6 8 Planet 75 50d
7 8 F Orbit 75 1s
8 8 F Orbit 75 3s
9 8 F Orbit 90 4s
A 9 F Orbit 120 5s
B 11 X Orbit 150 6s </pre>[/QUOTE]Not granular enough? That's what I'm worried about.

My other concern is how to balance range with pen with damage for each weapon type.

 

[robject]

Oz,

I like your abstract combat table. Taking your contributions to the Fleet Production thread into consideration, might using FFW as the abstract combat system accomplish the same thing? Or is that too abstract?

Back to the thread. I've lately been thinking about things Aramis has said in favor of MT vehicle combat. I wonder if it would be meaningful to convert the MT ship weapons tables into a High-Guard-friendly format, while also replacing the HG damage table with pen/dmg rules.

My take, which I'm no longer so sure about, is to rate weapons by the same size factor that I rate starship hulls: as a size-8 hull displaces 100 tons, so a factor-8 battery uses up one hardpoint; essentially a HG triple turret. A factor-7 weapon uses up 1/3 of a hardpoint, and all lower factors use 1/10 of a hp. Alternately, a spinal weapon may be implicitly where the battery factor is equal to the ship's size code. I'm examining the options here.

I figure a factor-1 weapon is a hand weapon, a factor-2 weapon is a rifle or rpg-sized thing, a factor-3 is an infantry support weapon. Factors 4 and 5 are vehicle-mounted weapons, and factor-6 is a small spacecraft weapon or heavy vehicle weapon. Factor-7 is where weapons truly have enough range and power to be useful in spaceship combat. Factor-8 is the largest weapon that can be mounted on small spacecraft (1 hardpoint). Factor-9 weapons are mounted on craft 1000 tons and up; Factor-10 are for craft 10ktons+; Factor-11 are for 100ktons+, and are usually spinal guns. Factor-12 batteries are for whatever craft might displace a million tons or more.

Here's an example. It's incomplete, and the numbers aren't correct, yet. The Damage rating is split between personal combat values and starship combat values... don't know what to do with that...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Damage note: 'd' is 'd6'; '1s' is one starship hit, equivalent to 500d6.

Factor TL Range Pen Damage EP MCr
1 15 Close 5 3d
2 12 Long 10 5d
3 10 Distant 20 8d
4 9 Region 40 12d
5 8 Cont 75 20d
6 8 Planet 75 50d
7 8 F Orbit 75 1s
8 8 F Orbit 75 3s
9 8 F Orbit 90 4s
A 9 F Orbit 120 5s
B 11 X Orbit 150 6s </pre>[/QUOTE]Not granular enough? That's what I'm worried about.

My other concern is how to balance range with pen with damage for each weapon type.

 

[The Oz]

Originally posted by robject:
Oz,

I like your abstract combat table. Taking your contributions to the Fleet Production thread into consideration, might using FFW as the abstract combat system accomplish the same thing? Or is that too abstract?

FFW (or any similar system we might come up with) is best suited to really large-scale naval combat, where you have literally tens of millions of tons of starships organized into lots of fleets.

The Abstract Naval Combat system I suggested up-topic is more suited to mid-range combat, where you might have a couple of squadrons, or even one small fleet, but not several fleets.

There are elements of each which could be grafted onto the other. I have some ideas on how to give FFW-style combat a little more "flavor."